A sad tale, but what else is new? This happens almost every day. Notwithstanding all the political chatter about amending Title 26, I have yet to hear anyone suggesting a rule of reason for filing Tax Court petitions.

Well, John & Lisa want their sixty bucks back, especially since Ch J Iron Fist ordered them to send it in before telling them they were late.

Too bad, so sad, John & Lisa. “…, insofar as petitioners have suggested a degree of dissatisfaction with having been directed to pay the filing fee for a case subject to dismissal, they are advised that the filing fee is intended to defray the administrative expense of filing and processing a petitioner’s paperwork, without regard to whether such paperwork establishes a valid basis for jurisdiction and/or a continuing action. Subsequent dismissal or resolution does not affect the fact that a case was begun. Consequently, the filing fee is not refundable by the Court.” Order, at p. 4.

Because it looked like John & Lisa wanted to start the case, and Ethel seemed uncertain (or maybe Ch J Iron Fist couldn’t figure out what Ethel wanted), Ethel gets her money back and John & Lisa don’t? But in both cases there was paperwork, a docket number assigned, and an order issued. And the sixty bucks is owed “without regard to whether such paperwork established a valid basis for jurisdiction,” right?

So what’s the rule?

And this is not just another irrelevant rant. More people are involved at the sixty-buck-ticket-to-justice phase than anywhere else. Every Tax Court case starts with something, be it even an unaccompanied money order, a partial copy of a NOD or SNOD, one or more of IRS’ multifarious billets doux that look like a SNOD but aren’t, or even a letter from a confused pro se without a clue.

An author, teacher, advocate and trusted advisor, Lew Taishoff is a New York City-based attorney with 51 years of experience in corporate and individual tax and real estate matters. He is an Enrolled Agent, examined and admitted to practice before the Internal Revenue Service, and admitted to practice before the United States ... Continue reading →